What Alternatives Are There For Alignments... ?

[Azlan]

After playing D&D for many years, I'm beginning to see that the concept and the game rules for alignments hinders more than it does facilitate three-dimensional roleplaying and true-to-life game worlds. Simply put, alignments are too stereotypical and two-dimensional to portray the realities and intricacies of sentient beings with free wills.

Now, I realize that alignments are an integral part of the D&D game system, and that many spells and class abilities/restrictions depend on them. But, still, I think it may be possible to do away with alignments while still maintaining the functions that they serve. Besides, the purpose of this post is not so much to debate whether alignments in D&D should or should not be done away with, as it is to discuss alternatives.

So, my question is: What alternatives are there for alignments; alternatives that will work well with D&D?

One alternative, of course, is to simply create and use a detailed description of each character's ethical, principled, and/or moral make-up; all this, as part of the character's background material; and for the players and the DM to simply "roleplay" it. But I want something more than that. I think just using descriptions is too open-ended and subjective, which is difficult for a DM to manage and arbitrate. Besides, how would you integrate such descriptions with game rules such as class alignment restrictions, or with special abilities such as Detect Evil, or with spells such as Protection from Good/Evil?

Myself, I am currently working on a system that I call "Virtues & Vices". (Note, this will NOT be an advantages/disadvantages system, whereby a player can stack up a bunch of flaws or what not's in order to make his character more powerful.) Using my system, player characters and NPCs will be described as per the following examples...

- - - - - - - -

Typical Dwarf Fighter. Aura: +20 (Light Gray).

Virtues: Careful +5, Investigative +10, Law-Abiding +10, Responsible +10, Reverent +10, Serving +5. (Number of virtues: 6. Total virtues modifiers: +50.)

Vices: Alcoholic -5, Carousing -5, Greedy -5, Prejudiced -10, Stubborn -5. (Number of vices: 5. Total vices modifiers: -30.)

- - - - - - - -

Typical Halfling Rogue. Aura: +0 (Gray).

Virtues: Charitable +5, Cheerful +10, Easygoing +5, Examining +5, Liberal +10, Sociable +5. (Number of virtues: 6. Total virtues modifiers: +40.)

Vices: Anarchistic -10, Compulsive Gambler -10, Delinquent -5, Lazy -5, Spendthrift -5, Untrustworthy -5. (Number of vices: 6. Total vices modifiers: -40.)

- - - - - - - -

Typical Half-Orc Barbarian. Aura: -20 (Dark Gray).

Virtues: Gallant +5, Reverent +10, Trusting +10, Unbiased +5. (Number of virtues: 4. Total virtues modifiers: +30.)

Vices: Anarchistic -5, Bloodthirsty -10, Bully -5, Impulsive -5, Lascivious -5, Reckless -5, Vengeful -10, Wasteful -5. (Number of vices: 8. Total vices modifiers: -50.)

- - - - - - - -

But before I fully present the first draft of my alternative to alignments (which I will do so in the House Rules section), I first want to discuss what other (or similar) alternatives there might be, and I want to discuss the ramifications and complications there might be in using such alternatives. (Besides, my "Virtues & Vices" rules are still very much a work in progress.)

 

[Wombat]

In my best games (D20 and not) we don't use alignment at all.

Actions affect people's (characters') reputations; intentions affect future actions.

In the end, you are as you present yourself.

I know there are a lot of hang-ups due to The Planes, but then again, my group don't really use set Planes very much either. Then again, all you have to do is state that Devils act in such and such a manner, Daemons another and Demons a third. The acts they participate in are Evil (as recognized in your world) and they try to get PCs to follow in suit with them.

I have been happy to not have alignment. It hasn't led to less heroic games, it hasn't led to a lot of problems with character motivation. The only problems would come up with Monks and Paladins, but we don't use those classes, Monks because they don't fit the climate and Paladins because of we feel that a Fighter-Cleric is closer to the image.

 

[Maerdwyn]

A common solution I've heard used (and then used myself) is to drop alignments, and substitute the alignment in various spells with the word "enemy" or "outsider", etc. So, detect evil becomes "detect enemy" or "detect hostile intent". Protection from evil might become "protection from outsiders".

Some people only drop alignment for mortals and Prime Material residents.

For normally aligned classes, like Paladins and monks, come up with a code of conduct that spells out specifically what the character's religion and/or order allows and demands of them.

We also had some success using some ideas from the Pendragon game, which defined character's traits like their modesty, piety, vengefulness, etc.

 

[tetsujin28]

Always nice to hear from someone who enjoys Pendragon! As far as D&D goes, you might want to check out the Allegiance system from d20 Modern.

 

[randomling]

Azlan - I *really* like this idea, and I'd be interested to see a fuller version when it's all written up. I'm not entirely sure how it's working, though. For instance, Careful a 5-point Virtue, or does the Dwarf have 5 points in Virtue: Careful?

(Subscribes to thread.)

 

[tetsujin28]

Always nice to hear from someone who enjoys Pendragon! You might want to check out the Allegiance system from d20 Modern.

 

[DMScott]

The best alternative alignment system given that you find alignments constraining is no alignment at all (at least, for PCs). Any system developed to mimic the effect alignments have will almost certainly have the same constraint problem as alignments. Biggest problem with going the no alignment route is spells - a few approaches I've tried:

1) Only outsiders and undead have alignment. This leaves a lot of the spells and class abilities intact, since it's still plenty useful - arguably more useful - for Detect Evil or Protection From Evil to work on demons, devils, vampires, etc. You probably need to come up with codes of behaviour for alignment-restricted classes such as Paladins or Monks, but many DMs do that even with an alignment system.

2) Replace alignment-type spells with spells that operate on enemies. So instead of Detect Evil, you have Detect Enemy which detects creatures who are hostile towards you. Holy Word affects those hostile to the religion of the caster, and so on. This allows a fairly easy conversion for many spells, so it's not a hugely difficult conversion. And in some settings, it leads to some neat effects, like Paladins of opposed religions detecting each other as enemies.

3) Just get rid of magic that detects alignment in any way. This takes a fair number of spells away (especially from Clerics) and removes a bread-and-butter Paladin ability, so it requires the most work to make balance adjustments appropriate for your campaign. I only really recommend this if you plan to make some big changes anyway - for example, Arcana Unearthed has no clerics, so no alignments and no alignment-based magic is just a subset of what AU's doing.

 

[Trainz]

After playing D&D for many years, I'm beginning to see that the concept and the game rules for alignment hinders more than it does facilitate three-dimensional roleplaying and true-to-life game worlds.

Well, you're not the first one that realises that bub.

*SNIKT*



You cannot throw alignment altogether, because many mechanics revolve around it. You would have to change many spells and abilities if you did so. I tried in the past, with more or less success...

What you could do is leave the alignment system in, but only apply it to critters not native to the material planes i.e. aasimar, demons, etc... that would give your players more power though, so be careful if you use that option. The Balor won't be able to blasphemy your players, but they will be able to holy word him for example.

 

[Trainz]

What Scott said...

*sigh*

That's TWICE today that someone suggests the same thing as I do, but clicks SUBMIT REPLY juuuust before I do.

 

[Umbran]

(Besides, my "Virtues & Vices" rules are still very much a work in progress.)

Well, based on the very limited information you present, I'll give you a caution that applies to a number of alignment alternatives that I've seen over time.

The problem with alignment is that it is very general and broad. But that's also it's strength. It doesn't describe with much precision, but it is simple and flexible.

I think you'll find that if you try to describe real people well, whatever system you'll come up with is hopelessly complex, because real people are hopelessly complex

For example, look at those characters you describe. Sure, the things you write there more accurately, completely, and precisely describe them as people, but you need to track 11 or 12 new stats to do it. Honestly, is it worth the paperwork to track dozens of personality traits with numbers? For every single character?